 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006Wide angle zoom lens
Hi, I am torn between buying the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and the Canon EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5 lenses. The Canon is a bit faster, but there's a fair jump in price (Sigma £280, Canon £470, although I can get £70 cashback on that if I go for the Canon). Any advice as to the pros and cons of each lens, and whether there is a decent third choice that I hadn't considered? Many thanks. > Hi, I am torn between buying the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and the Canon > EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5 lenses. The Canon is a bit faster, but there's a > fair jump in price (Sigma £280, Canon £470, although I can get £70 > cashback on that if I go for the Canon). Any advice as to the pros > and cons of each lens, and whether there is a decent third choice > that I hadn't considered? Many thanks. Your overall best bet for superior optics, build quality, and price is buying a Tokina 12-24 f/4. Sadly, both Nikon and Canon dropped the ball with their poor quality WA zooms in this range. Do a Google search and read some of the reviews and you'll quickly see how good the Tokina is. Rita >> Hi, I am torn between buying the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and the Canon >> EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5 lenses. The Canon is a bit faster, but there's a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >with their poor quality WA zooms in this range. Do a Google search and read >some of the reviews and you'll quickly see how good the Tokina is. I'm a satisfied owner of the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 for my Nikons. While not and AF-S like the Nikon, for the type of photos I use this WA for focusing speed isn't an issue. The several hundred U$ in price difference was.  SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > Hi, I am torn between buying the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and the Canon > EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5 lenses. The Canon is a bit faster, but there's a > fair jump in price (Sigma £280, Canon £470, although I can get £70 > cashback on that if I go for the Canon). Any advice as to the pros > and cons of each lens, and whether there is a decent third choice > that I hadn't considered? Many thanks. For you comparisons: http://www.fototime.com/inv/B07A85DAFD4F720 Canon 10-22 on a 20D. Of which there is no whicher, my view. It works good; if I didn't have a full-frame Canon in my near future, I wouldn't (didn't) hesitate. One more: http://static.flickr.com/26/48789969_047e763303_o.jpg Resp'y, SignatureFrank ess > For you comparisons: > http://www.fototime.com/inv/B07A85DAFD4F720 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > One more: > http://static.flickr.com/26/48789969_047e763303_o.jpg Frank, unless my monitor is failing I have to say they are very blurry and soft. These images should be razor sharp with the 20D. I would like to see a side-by-side with the Tokina 12-24. Rita > > For you comparisons: > > http://www.fototime.com/inv/B07A85DAFD4F720 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > soft. These images should be razor sharp with the 20D. I would like to see > a side-by-side with the Tokina 12-24. The lens IS better than that. I get, as you put it, "razor sharp" images on my 400D (XTi). >> Frank, unless my monitor is failing I have to say they are very >> blurry and soft. These images should be razor sharp with the 20D. >> I would like to see a side-by-side with the Tokina 12-24. > > The lens IS better than that. I get, as you put it, "razor sharp" > images on my 400D (XTi). Oh, OK. I was just a bit concerned as I was expecting to see sharper images. I'm curious why the 20D isn't producing sharper images than the 400D? The 20D is an excellent camera and one should not be able to distinguish images between the two in the small "save for web" pics Frank showed. Rita >> For you comparisons: >> http://www.fototime.com/inv/B07A85DAFD4F720 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > see > a side-by-side with the Tokina 12-24. They looked a little, ahem, soft to me, too. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>> One more: >>> http://static.flickr.com/26/48789969_047e763303_o.jpg [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They looked a little, ahem, soft to me, too. Clearly the user is to blame for the image quality in some shots, not the lense (sorry Frank). In the first set, it looks like the aperture is too large to get good depth of field in most shots. Look closely and you'll find plenty of sharpness within the DOF. No EXIF data for most shots, so it's hard to say for sure if that's the problem. Some shots are just poor due to resampling or JPG processing. In the second linked image, the Doberman(?) and leash are in motion, so yeah it's going to appear soft. > Hi, I am torn between buying the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and the Canon EF-S > 10-22 3.5-4.5 lenses. The Canon is a bit faster, but there's a fair jump in > price (Sigma £280, Canon £470, although I can get £70 cashback on that if I > go for the Canon). Any advice as to the pros and cons of each lens, and > whether there is a decent third choice that I hadn't considered? Many > thanks. Both are excellent lenses. As you say, the Canon is marginally faster and also slightly lighter. The reason I chose the Canon was for its better resistance to flare when shooting against the light (which I often do). I saw a comparison, which showed the Canon to give much clearer pictures, with better contrast, in those situations. Of course the Sigma is by far the cheaper, so it's a matter of weighing factors like these against price, which only you can do. Hope this helps. Thanks all for your help, its been very useful. > Hi, I am torn between buying the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and the Canon EF-S > 10-22 3.5-4.5 lenses. The Canon is a bit faster, but there's a fair jump in > price (Sigma £280, Canon £470, although I can get £70 cashback on that if I > go for the Canon). Any advice as to the pros and cons of each lens, and > whether there is a decent third choice that I hadn't considered? Many > thanks. I tested both & decided on the Canon. The Sigma had better sharpness (actually, quite a bit better!), but the Canon had the edge on "resistance to flare". Se my shots with the 10-22 at www.pbase.com/roger_boulanger, San Diego and USS Midway galleries. That was my first try with the new lenses. I was horrified to the what my polarizer had done to my shots when shooting at less than 11mm. The Sigma is a very good lens for the money. However be careful to avoid flare. >> Hi, I am torn between buying the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and the Canon >> EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5 lenses. The Canon is a bit faster, but there's a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 11mm. The Sigma is a very good lens for the money. However be careful > to avoid flare. Using the Tokina 12-24 would have eliminated all of this. Rita >> I was horrified to the >> what my polarizer had done to my shots when shooting at less than >> 11mm. The Sigma is a very good lens for the money. However be careful >> to avoid flare. > Using the Tokina 12-24 would have eliminated all of this. Mostly because it doesn't do 10 and 11mm, right? -Wolfgang >>> I was horrified to the >>> what my polarizer had done to my shots when shooting at less than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mostly because it doesn't do 10 and 11mm, right? Mostly because the Tokina is optically superior to the Sigma with or without the addition of a proper ultra-thin polarizer. Rita >>>> I was horrified to the what my polarizer had done to my shots >>>> when shooting at less than 11mm. The Sigma is a very good lens >>>> for the money. However be careful to avoid flare. >>> Using the Tokina 12-24 would have eliminated all of this. >> Mostly because it doesn't do 10 and 11mm, right? It doesn't do 12 (or 24 mm) either. If you measure its FOV, you'll find the Tokina is really a 13-23mm lens. > Mostly because the Tokina is optically superior to the Sigma with or > without the addition of a proper ultra-thin polarizer. The unpleasing colour shifts in the sky you get from using a polarizer at extreme wide angles has nothing to do with flare (or other qualities of your lens), they just indicate that your polarizer behaves according to the laws of physics. Optically, I think the Sigma and Tokina are about equal (and both are very good for the money). The greatest asset of the Tokina is its f/4.0 constant speed, but its noticeable less wide than the Sigma (and also less wide than the Nikkor 12-24mm). Here are some sample shots from the Sigma. Notice how well flare is controlled in the first two shots and the edge-to-edge sharpness of the bricks in the third. http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=252195501&size=o http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=139652410&size=o http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=209526800&size=o And here is a quote from a comparison between the Sigma and Tokina by "Lightspeed" that I saved from some time back. "Bottom Line: On most normal sized prints, you're just /not/ going to notice a whole lot of difference between these lenses optically. Being UWA lenses, they both are very good performers in terms of overall sharpness, contrast, and flare performance - certainly comparable to the excellent Canon EF-S 10-22. The Sigma is sharper both in center and border performance throughout the focal range, while the Tokina gets the nod in terms of overall contrast reproduction. In terms of light falloff performance the Tokie takes the prize. However, I give the /overall/ nod to the Sigma EX primarily for its sharpness, 10mm width (16mm v 19.2mm FOV), ring HSM/FTM, exceptional CA and flare performance, smaller size/weight, and much sturdier hood. At day's end, I can't fault anyone for opting for one over the other; they are both exceptional UWAs that can be had for well under $500 USD. But overall I think the Sigma still offers more, and hence it will remain my UWA of choice (I was going to let my Sigma go if the Tokina out-performed it). Kudos to both Sigma and Tokina for a job well done with these UWAs." Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Using the Tokina 12-24 would have eliminated all of this. > > >> Mostly because it doesn't do 10 and 11mm, right? > > It doesn't do 12 (or 24 mm) either. If you measure its FOV, you'll > find the Tokina is really a 13-23mm lens. please cite proof of this claim. >> It doesn't do 12 (or 24 mm) either. If you measure its FOV, you'll >> find the Tokina is really a 13-23mm lens. > > please cite proof of this claim. It's pretty common that many lenses are not exactly what is stamped on the side of the lense. You can expect a lense to be a bit shorter or longer than it says, and manufacturing tolerances just exacerbate the situation. The next in-depth camera or lense review you read, look for details about the zoom range and angle of view it covers. You'll notice many lenses are not exactly what they claim, but are usually "close enough". > >> It doesn't do 12 (or 24 mm) either. If you measure its FOV, you'll > >> find the Tokina is really a 13-23mm lens. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > longer than it says, and manufacturing tolerances just exacerbate the > situation. true. > The next in-depth camera or lense review you read, look for details > about the zoom range and angle of view it covers. You'll notice many > lenses are not exactly what they claim, but are usually "close > enough". and which in-depth review found the tokina to be 13-23mm? >> It doesn't do 12 (or 24 mm) either. If you measure its FOV, you'll >> find the Tokina is really a 13-23mm lens. > please cite proof of this claim. The exact figures 13-23 mm comes a measurement done in an optical bench by the Norwegian photography monthly magazine "Fotografi" as part of their test of the Tokina. However, on a less formal basis: When I compared Tokina's 12-24mm to Nikon's 12-24mm, it was quite obvious that the Nikon was both wider and longer than the Tokina. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> It doesn't do 12 (or 24 mm) either. If you measure its FOV, you'll > >> find the Tokina is really a 13-23mm lens. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > When I compared Tokina's 12-24mm to Nikon's 12-24mm, it was quite > obvious that the Nikon was both wider and longer than the Tokina. thanks. is this test on line? i'd like to see how they tested it. did they also measure the sigma 10-20? what did it test out to? >>>> It doesn't do 12 (or 24 mm) either. If you measure its FOV, you'll >>>> find the Tokina is really a 13-23mm lens. >>> please cite proof of this claim. >> The exact figures 13-23 mm comes a measurement done in an optical >> bench by the Norwegian photography monthly magazine "Fotografi" as >> part of their test of the Tokina. However, on a less formal basis: >> When I compared Tokina's 12-24mm to Nikon's 12-24mm, it was quite >> obvious that the Nikon was both wider and longer than the Tokina. > thanks. > is this test on line? i'd like to see how they tested it. Unfortunately not, paper only. According to the text, they measure FOV (they don't say how, but for instance by shooting some sort of supersize protractor), and compute the real focal length of the lens' from the measured FOV. > did they also measure the sigma 10-20? what did it test out to? Yes. They measured the Sigma to 10-19mm, complained about slight barrell distortion and severe vignetting and lack of tangential sharpness below f/8, in particular at the wider half of its range. They found the Sigma's radial sharpness to be acceptable. They liked the mechnical construction, overall finish, and the HSM. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > is this test on line? i'd like to see how they tested it. > > Unfortunately not, paper only. According to the text, they measure > FOV (they don't say how, but for instance by shooting some sort of > supersize protractor), and compute the real focal length of the lens' > from the measured FOV. the issue i have is that many lenses, including the tokina 12-24mm and sigma 10-20mm, are internal focus designs, and they can vary the focal length when focusing closer than infinity. so if the test target was not at infinity, a little variance is to be expected. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.